econ4all

The problem with these "progressive" modifications is that they complicate a simple idea, add points of contention and ultimately kill the whole thing.

Just pass the tax in it's simplest form and then see if further adjustment is needed, the perfect being the enemy of the good and what not.

Or just add tolls to the rest of bridges and add the congestion tax to the toll price.

The tax won't be the only piece of reform, it will get the ball rolling though, you just need to lose the defeatist attitude.

The assumption is that tax revenue would go to mending the subway system and other public transport.

People will manage, it wouldn't be the first implementation of the tax, you'll end up with less cars on the road and more revenue and that is something you can work with.

It's closer to a 50/50 split than you make it sound, and the difference between this the microsoft case is that Windows had >95% of the market and not to mention that OEMs don't need google's permission to roll out their own OS (see the Chinese mobile market) also consumers would need those fundamental apps to make the phone usable similar to the apps that come with iOS which contrary to Android's are the defaults forever and can't be replaced.

Two words: congestion tax.

It's practically criminal that their mayor and other local figures are opposed to it.

They weren't forcing anyone to sign the contracts, see Fire devices and the Chinese mobile market for google free Android examples. Also you're making sound like they were "bundling" trash, the apps are useful and of higher quality than most apps on the platform, not mention that they make Android phones comparable to iPhones.

Reporters love nothing more than reporting on their previous reports and taking credit. Of course only accounts that confirm their narrative and friendly quotes (from their sources) make into publication.

There is nothing wrong with a company seeking to enter new markets especially that their absence from these countries doesn't change a thing.

Between this and their main rival reaching a trillion dollar valuation would someone explain to me what the EU fine was for?

Not to interrupt another google bashing session on this site or stop an EU person from self-righteously patting themselves on the back but conflating several issues to justify political reprisal is exactly what's wrong with the EU's fine issuance regime and ad-hominem attacks on companies to try and justify the practice to yourself doesn't make it look better.

Also "anti-trust" is an american term with historical context (you use the generic term), we invented the practice, and unlike you we don't use it as a political and protectionist tool.

There are a couple of recurring themes here:

1. the hyper-moralising over google's business decisions, they're not the only company that modifies its business to access the chinese market nor is the chinese government the only one that demands censorship.

2. google employees' attempts to sabotage the company's business prospects.